Talk:Toyota Prius/Archive 1

Plural form of Prius

What's the plural of Prius?

My favorite is Prii --D0li0 08:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There were a lot of debate on this issue on some Prius forums. Some argued the word should be treated as a Latin word. Some said that Toyota uses this word as a Japanese word, hence there is no difference between singular and plural (Japanese language does not use plural forms). I don't remember what the final result of the debate was. It is up to you to question the authority of Toyota on this matter. Kowloonese 18:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, Prii is a pseudo-Latin fabrication. The real plural of the latin word Prius is Priora. (Prius is the neuter form of Prior, which means much the same in Latin as in English, but can function as adjective, adverb or noun). I'd say the invariant plural Prius, or just Priuses are defensible. Priora is cumbersome, and wouldn't be recognised as a plural by your average English speaker. Prii is a bit silly.

As for Toyota's authority — I've never seen them use a plural of Prius in any of their literature, so I'm not sure we'll get an answer from them. Probably because marketing types seem to have a morbid fear of plurals; they keep talking about "product" and such-like. Toyota generally just talk about "the Prius". I suspect their internal style guide rules against pluralising any of their vehicle names. And I'd tend to agree with them — it's clumsy. Try to rephrase, or use "the Prius". --KJBracey 12:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a referential link handy right this second, but I recall seeing a link to a Toyota rep saying the plural form of Prius is 'Prius' 65.244.227.194 04:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Rob Palkowski

72.75.125.189 13:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)== HOV lane usage by hybrid cars ==

Someone corrected an error yesterday, but Fuzheado put back the error just a minute later. Since I don't know the details, I just want to raise this as an issue. And advise Fuzheado to check the fact before changing someone's corrections.

Sorry, the revert was done because we were having a flurry of vandalism, and this was misunderstood to be so. However, take note: 1) changing from CA to FL was done by an anonymous user, 2) no comment was left as to why it was done and 3) my edit was a revert, not a conviction that CA was the right answer. Fuzheado 22:42, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here is the information.

The bill was introduced in 2003 and it was never passed.

FYI - AB 114 was introduced in 2003 by CA Assembly Member George Nakano to allow hybrid vehicles onto the high-occupany vehicle lanes, regardless of the number of occupants in the vehicle.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_114_bill_20030114_introduced.pdf

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_114_bill_20030123_history.html (current status)

As I understand it, he plans on re-introducing a similar bill, but with measures to provide greater coordination/cooperation with the Federal government. For more information or to express support for the effort, you might want to contact his office.

District Office 1217-19 El Prado Avenue Torrance, CA 90501 (310) 782-1553 Assemblymember.Nakano@assembly.ca.gov

AB 114 has been inactive. Bill AB2628 and AJR74 were signed by our Governator some time ago, it is still going through the state government. Some predicted that they will be effective by the end of 2004.

See HOV for hybrid cars for more info.

AB 2628, Assemblymember Pavley's bill to allow usage of the HOV lanes by Hybrids that are SULEV or AT-PZEV and get at least 45 MPG (rated), again passed the California Assembly today, 8/26 after a vote to accept the amendments added in the Senate which had passed it 8/24.

Gov. Schwartzenegger signed the Bill into law on September 23, 2004. Federal legislation is required to allow it to go into affect January 1, 2005.

Due to the 45 mpg fuel effeciency requirment, the upcoming 2005 Ford Escape will not qualify to use the HOV lanes. Only 75000 stickers will be issued and the privilege may be revoked in the future if traffic condition changes. Allowing non-HOV to go on HOV lanes may violate Federal laws that result in loss of Federal highway funding. So the passing of this law in State legislation is meaningless without Federal approval.

According to an news article in Sacramento Bee on Dec 6, 2004, the Fed approval will not come in time for the Jan 1, 2005 roll out of the new law. (they blamed it on the Iraq war and the election year.)

California might have another option - following the renegade footsteps of Virginia. Virginia allows hybrids with just one occupant in car-pool lanes. Federal officials have informed Virginia it is out of federal compliance, but have not disciplined the state.

As of Aug 10, 2005, Californian DMV has started accepting application for the Clean Air Vehicle stickers from owners of Prius and other qualified hybrid cars. It takes about 30 days to issue the stickers, hence hybrids may start to use HOV lane starting around Sept 10, 2005. The stickers cost a one-time $8 fee. For hybrid cars registered to SF Bay Area counties, the application requires a proof of subscription to the Fastrak service. Allegedly, the Fastrak RFID based toll paying transponder is needed so that solo occupied hybrid cars can pay toll and use the car pool lane at the same time. In the SF Bay Area, some toll bridges are free to car-pools during rush hours. Therefore, most cars on HOV lane except the non-car-pooling hybrids can pass without toll. It is unsure how the system selectively charge tolls on hybrid cars without knowing how many people is on board. 67.117.82.2 21:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

FasTrak issues special transponders for hybrid cars. These transponders fall into a special range of ID numbers, the computer system at FasTrak then charges tolls on these special accounts selectively. Holders of these special transponders are responsible for hiding their transponders inside a mylar bag when crossing the toll booth as carpoolers, but show them in view when crossing as non-carpooling hybrids. If the drivers forget to show the device when not carpooling, then it is consider a toll violation and is punishable by fine. If the drivers forget to hide the device when carpooling, the unnecessary toll charged by the computer will not be refundable. So it is a lose-lose situation for any driver that makes mistake in handling these special transponders. Kowloonese 22:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I have heard the argument (on a radio talk show) that hybrids should not be allowed to use HOV lanes when carrying just the driver—for this reason: they are most fuel-efficient when operating in the stop-and-go (or at least relatively slow-moving) traffic characteristic of many urban freeways during rush hour. In other words, if traffic in the HOV lane is moving at or near highway speeds (say, 50-55 mph) while the traffic in the other lanes is moving at, say 25-35 mph, the environmental and economic benefits of the hybrid are achieved only if it's kept out of the fast lane.

Comment from Dave in Maryland: I live in Maryland, own a hybrid, and we are NOT allowed to drive in HOV. Maybe somewhere in Maryland, but not in the Washington DC suburbs. Virginia (the other surrounding state to the DC suburbs) does allow OLDER hybrids -- the law allowing hybrids in the HOV lane worked so well, lots of people bought them -- but then there was too much backlash against so many hybrids in the HOV that it was determined that new hybrid owners would not be able to use the lanes. And since your HOV has to be registered with special tags anyway in Virginia, even though I work in Virginia I cannot use the HOV lanes there either (I have Maryland tags.) So much for smart government, on either side of the Potomac in Washington.

2003 vs 2004 data

It is nice to add a data block to the page. However, the data in the block badly need some review. Since the 2004 Prius is a resigned car, it does not make sense to mix its stats with the 1997-2003 models. The data block contains "hybrid" info. For example, the body style listed is good only for old models (the 2004 model only comes in one 5 door hatchback trim). The engine type listed is only good for the new model (the old model used THS Toyota Hybrid System, not HSD.) The 500 Volt electric system is also good for the 2004 model only. One set of dimension cannot be correct for two different cars either. It may be necessary to list the 2004 stats separately.

hey yall maddie loves abby powell! from maddie b.

Ford Escape Hybrid

Ford Motor Company is planning a hybrid engine version of the Ford Escape. Ford signed a licensed agreement in March 2004 to use 20 hybrid technology patents from Toyota.

I think this may be misleading: the Escape (and future Ford hybrids) are not based in any way on the Prius, and do not borrow any components. Ford did indeed liscense some Toyota petents, but only after designing it's own proprietary system (there were near-production Escape hybrids in final testing LONG before March 2004!).

Hybrid systems are so fundamentally similar and there's so much convergent design they calculated it would be cheaper to pay Toyota a small royalty than risk being sued (and suffering the resulting PR damange, regardless of whether the lawsuit had merrit or not). This is the line from both Ford and Toyota. -- stewacide 18:45, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

• This was so misleading that I changed it (anonymously as 203.12.172.254 -- whoops). I think Tempshill may have inadvertenly over-simplified this section, so that it began reading differently. I have fixed it and the following entry on the Nissan too. If you need a source, try [1]. As it says: "The Ford agreement is very different from the one with Nissan". 'Nuff said I think. Mattisgoo 06:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

writing style?

My grade school teacher taught me to write short and clean sentences. The sentence below is a mile long. I'd suggest someone rewrite it into smaller chunks.

With a new drag coefficient of 0.26 and featuring the third generation hybrid powertrain technology called Hybrid Synergy Drive (HSD) replacing the old Toyota Hybrid System (THS) technology, the new 2004 Prius is a compact car with more room than the previous subcompact (4 doors plus a rear hatch, a smaller but higher voltage NiMH battery), is more powerful (2 seconds faster in 0 to 96 km/h acceleration) and is 15% more fuel efficient than the previous generation Prius (59 mpg city, 51 mpg highway, according to the EPA) when driven properly[1] (http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-02-03-hybridmileage_x.htm), yet is still 90% cleaner than conventional gasoline-only automobiles.

Kowloonese 18:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - check it out now. Lots more material also and some sneaky POV others may want to edit out. Leonard G. 04:45, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

size class vs weight class

The sentence above said the 2004 Prius is a compact car with more room. That is an error. The Prius is classified by the EPA as a mid-size car according to its interior room despite the exterior of the car is about the same as a compact Corolla. Some other government agencies classify the 2004 Prius as a compact car by weight. Since the above sentence is talking about interior room in the same breath, it should mention its size-class instead of its weight-class. I made the change on Jun 15, 2004.

Kowloonese 18:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

other Toyota hybrids

Due to the success of both the engineering and sales of the Prius, Toyota is currently planning a hybrid V-6 engine for the Lexus GX, as well as a hybrid engine version of the Camry. Toyota plans to sell the Lexus in late 2004, promising equal performance of the 4.7 L V-8 currently shipping in the GX470, with the fuel economy of the Camry's 2.2 L 4-cylinder engine.

There is no base for this sentence. It is simply wrong. Based on all the news releases, Toyota will produce a Lexus RX400h and a hybrid Toyota Highlander for the 2005 model year later this fall. Rumor has it that their Sienna minivan will be next in line but not in 2005. There is no word about the GX or Camry going hybrid soon even though Toyota announced that their entire product line will go hybrid eventually few years from now. Since the Camry and the Prius are in the same price range. It would only make sense for Toyota to do other hybrids before cannibalizing their own sedan class. What about a hybrid fullsize truck and a hybrid super sportcar before doing a hybrid Camry?

I made the change on Jun 15, 2004. Kowloonese 23:25, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Km/h -> km/g

The recent addition of km/h after the mpg info is problematic. km/h and mpg are two different kinds of unit, they are not compatible. I changed it to km/g to make them both fuel consumption unit. Yet it is no good either, km is metric and gallon is not. On the Toyota Prius, the fuel consumption is either presented as mpg (mile per gallon) or as liter per kilometer. The current value & unit need to be corrected.

Kilometers per litre is not the correct way of expressing fuel economy. The standard measurement for expressing fuel economy in metric terms is L/100km, I have made appropriate changes. 70.51.148.114 15:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

pictures of 2004 Toyota Prius

Front view of 2004 Toyota Prius	Driver side front quarter view of 2004 Toyota Prius	Driver side view of 2004 Toyota Prius
Driver side rear quarter view of 2004 Toyota Prius	Rear view of 2004 Toyota Prius	Passenger side rear quarter view of 2004 Toyota Prius
Passenger side view of 2004 Toyota Prius	Passenger side front quarter view of 2004 Toyota Prius	Alloy wheel (with plastic beauty rim) of the US version of 2004 Toyota Prius
Optional high Intensity Discharge headlight on 2004 Toyota Prius

Sebastopol Dealership

As of March 2004, the waiting list in Sebastopol, California was over 100 people long.

Having grown up in Sebastopol, and still living down the road, I can tell you for a fact that there is no Toyota dealership there. Did you mean to say something along the lines of "As of March 2004, the nearest Toyota Dealership (Freeman Toyota) had a waiting list that included over 100 citizens of Sebastopol, California"?

just wanted to clarify ;) --Hes Nikke 02:43, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to Freeman Toyota, although I do not know of the composition of the waiting list. Should it be changed to Santa Rosa, California or Sonoma County, California? I am only mildly familiar with the area. [[User:PlatinumX|PlatinumX]] 21:31, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

EV button

The Japanese and European version of this vehicle assume an intelligent driver and provide a button that maintains stealth mode under most low load conditions. The US model does not provide this button and so there may be a subtle inference here.

This two statements may violate NPOV policy. The EV button will push the battery through deep discharge cycles that will significantly shorten the battery life. Since the battery carries a warranty of 150K mile (10 years) in California and several other states or 100K mile (8 years) in the rest of the continent. It is not hard to assume that the removal of the EV button in the US model is to protect the company's risk in supporting the batteries for long warranty period. I really doubt the decision infers the intelligent level of the drivers. Kowloonese 23:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure does! I was wondering if anyone was reading the article. That did stay in for quite a while. All fixed up now, plus a neat driving trick to get ICE shutdown. (Is this in the manual?) There are (likely warranty violating) wiring additions to enable stealth mode, some of which are well hidden - replacing a rarely used function in the cruise control, others are more bold, simply putting a button where it is found on the non-US models. Leonard G. 05:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Many people have speculated about why Toyota does not offer the EV button in the US, but since the display shows only the mid-range of the battery's charge, and EV mode gets overriden automatically at the low end of that range, it does not get close to deep discharge. Nevertheless, it is possible extensive use of the button could impact battery life slightly. Meanwhile, Toyota's marketing campaign, like that of all hybrid makers, emphasizes "you don't have to plug it in," since they perceive significant public confusion about whether hybrids are electric vehicles, so having a button marked "EV" in the car wouldn't help them deliver their message.--Felixkramer 18:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is also speculation that because EV mode doesn't always engage due to low battery condition, high vehicle speed, high external temperatures, high average (suburban) road speeds in the US, etc. that it's unnecessary in the USA, and that poor understanding of the EV option could be a PR problem. NuShrike 04:33 16 Sept 2005 (UTC)

I heard that they did not include this button due to government red tape about having an EV button makes the car "electric only" and would have to be registered as such. Also, it does not affect the battery because the computer will automatically cancel EV mode if the battery gets too low or you go too fast. I read a British review of the Prius (I forget where) and the reviewer said he could not even get around the block when he had the car in EV mode, because the computer automatically turns EV mode off. The button is only good if you have to move a short distance in a parking lot of move your car into/out of your driveway. --michael180 14:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The EV button has no "real" practical use unless the battery reserve is big enough for the Prius to operate as a true Electric car. According to the project of the Prius+ prototype, you will need to shell out US$10000 to beef up the Prius as a grid pluggable electric car. Kowloonese 00:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure it has real practical uses, such as moving the car arround a parking lot, or demonstrating the ev-mode to friends. If you live at the top of a hill you could use it to discharge the battery on the way home to make room for more regen charge on the way back down the hill. As far as the EDrive conversion pack price of ~$10K-14K, most of which does towards the most expensive Li-ion batteries money can buy, it could be done for about $3K or less with traditional PbA batteries, or Toyota could produce the car with larger batteries and plug-in abilities for an additional $3K from the factory. I concure that it was most likely left off of US models because of the extra trouble it would have taken to get it emissions tested, why they couldn't have simply ignored the button I don't know. --D0li0 10:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

All the button does in Europe is shut the motor off temp if you just want to go a few hundred feet. The American Priuses have build in support for the button. All you need to do is buy any button and hook it up in to the place for it. You can also by the button from Europe dealers and install it your self. [2] --michael180 16:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm, ok, did my statements imply something to the contrary? I guess they did sorta take a tangent towards Plug-in_hybrid_electric_vehicles (Gridables, (Prius+, CalCars, CalCars-news, EDriveSystems), (Toyota PHEV Prius, [3], [4])). But I did come back arround with my understanding of the lack of the button (just the button) in the US, since none of the Hybrids have plug-ins yet, sorry for the confusion. --D0li0 07:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Poor efficiency and CO2 emissions of an ICE engine

I've deleted this phrase in relation to the question of being able to recharge the battery from the mains. While some sources of mains electricity are cleaner, I don't think there's any evidence that, from source to use, typical mains electricity would be better. There are losses in generation, transmission and charging and discharging the battery. --Cavrdg 08:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't find the original text about efficiency and CO2 emissions, but I replaced a reference to the issue when I added info about PRIUS+ conversins. You can find documentation of this issue at CalCars Vehicles Page Section 4

External links

I have cleaned up the list of external links, removing some extraneous links (some not specifically about the Prius or all that informative). The other sites and news articles could be cleaned up further to narrow the external links list to only those most informative and pertinent sites. --Aude 01:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Original Prius

I've added an extension to the Prius information table to document the distinct existance of the Japanese-only Prius '0th' Generation such as it used THS instead of THSII powertrain in the 'Classic'. Information changes mostly sourced from http://www.toyoland.com/prius-specs.html and some from http://john1701a.com. NuShrike 04:41 16 Sept 2005 (UTC)

Driving tips

What is the relevance, if any, of the driving tips near the end of the article? That, to me, is owners club or forum material and not encyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.250.152.182 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC).

• People come here to get information on the Prius. Of those people, I'd say quite a lot are actually owners of the said car. I doubt these "performance tricks" are detailed in the owner's manual, so they could be quite helpful for Prius drivers and perhaps other hybrid car drivers also. --82.18.242.139 12:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Patent infringement issues

Moved this content from the article...

As of autumn 2005, the Antonov Automotive Technology BV Plc company has sued Toyota Corp. over alleged patent infringement relating to key components in the Prius' drivetrain and the hybrid luxury SUV Lexus RX400h. The case has been pending in secret since April 2005, but settlement negotiations did not bring a mutually acceptable result. Antonov eventually took legal recourse in the german court system, where decisions are usually made relatively swift. The patent holder seeks to impose a levy on each Prius vehicle sold, which could make the hybrid car economically incompetitive. Toyota fought back by seeking to officially invalidate Antonov's relevant patents. The court motion in Winword document format can be read here.

Would this happen to be the same Suit[5]? Sorry, I don't read .doc files. If it is, it was Discussed here and dismissed for the most part. Seems like nonsense to me, more like Hybrid Hatemongering similar to Fords comments about "Toyota hogging all the Hybrid Parts". --D0li0 11:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Patent infringement alleged by Solomon Industries

A claim was filed on January 11,2006, by "Solomon Industries, Inc." with the United States International Trade Comission alleging that Toyota infringed on SI's patent in the Prius and the Toyota Highlander. While this commision cannot actually assess and award damages, it can block the import of any product that it determines violates a U.S. patent. SI previously filed a lawsuit against Toyota on September 12, 2005 claiming patent infringement.[6]

And, no I don't work for or have any associations with SI, and yes, I do own a Prius. --NightMonkey 09:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

More on Antonov hybrid technology patent infringement

An infringement action has been filed against Toyota by Antonov Automotive Technology BV (a wholly owned subsidiary of Antonov plc), the automotive technology company, at the Patent Court in Düsseldorf alleging infringement of its patents by the driveline of the Toyota Prius and Lexus RX400h. The case will receive its first hearing on the 22nd September 2005. The action was originally filed on the 12th April 2005, but the first hearing date was postponed to allow more time for negotiations to seek a satisfactory settlement. As the offer received is not satisfactory, no settlement has been reached and Antonov will proceed with the case. Through the case Antonov aims to establish the infringement and seek fair payment for the use of Antonov’s intellectual property in all relevant vehicles sold to date and for those that will be sold through to the expiry of the patents. [7] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.251.7.131 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

2006 model

New features pictures of 2006 Prius

There are many changes in the 2006 model. New features include:

• The smart airbags that deploy at variable speed depending on the force of impact.
• Leather seat option now available.
• A video camera overlooking the rear bumper
• tire pressure monitoring
• MP3 compatible audio system, input jack for portable music players
• etc.

The exterior is also slightly modified to give teletale signs of the new model.

Visible clues of the 2006 model includes:

• the grill bar just below the hood is chrome (used to be body color)
• the amber color section of the headlight is from top to bottom (used to be upper half only)
• the upper section of the brake lights appears chrome when not lit. (used to be black)
• Between the front wheels and the doors, a new "Hybrid SD" Logo is added on each side. The logo is a variation of the "HSD" logo on the back except the word Hybrid is spelled out.
• The alloy wheels look different too (to be confirmed because wheels were different in different markets for 2004/5 also.)

Kowloonese 19:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe those wheels are the same, and are simply missing the "Hub Caps" we have on the 2004 and 2005 models. The "Hub Caps" are meerly a small 2 inch plastic ring which causes the deep notch between the spokes and hub to appear more flush than in those photos. A benefit of the hub cap is the ability to use them to greatly modify the look of the wheels like this http://vassfamily.net/ToyotaPrius/rimscaps/RimsCaps.html . --D0li0 11:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Other hybrid-engine vehicles

The subsection on "Other hybrid-engine vehicles" is off-topic, and covered elsewhere in the Hybrid vehicle article. If no objections or consensus agrees with me, it will be deleted. --Aude 02:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree and have merged usefull information from that section into Hybrid vehicle#History. The first three points regarding Honda, ie:also cannot be driven without the gasoline engine are entirely worthless and seem to have come from someone with a grudge against the IMA Assist Hybrids. I'de just like to take this oppertunity to point out to people with this mentality that they should realize that while the Prius may have an EV-only Stealth Mode it is not IMHO an more (nor less) of a single fuel hybrid than any of the others. Both of these designes utilize regenerative braking, assist, and idle-stop. Without the ability to grid-recharge any EV-only abilities are nearly worthless. So, Untill that day let's not get our panties in a bunch over which non-mild hybrid is better. I'll gladly trade in both my 2000 Insight and 2005 Prius for which ever vehicle becomes the first Stock Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle! -Kmf164, I'll let you have the Deletion honors, and allow some more time for others to comment. --D0li0 10:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Does anyone see a reason that this article still needs "cleaned up"? I don't. I'm gonna remove the cleanup tag unless someone sees a reason why it should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDoober (talk • contribs)

Remove driving tricks and list of celebrities

Actually, I think this article does need cleanup. I propose taking out the "driving tricks" and move to a separate sub-article. In my opinion, this section takes away from the encyclopedic quality of the article. Also, let's take out of "Notable facts", the list of celebrities that drive a Prius. If no one objects, I'm going to comeback in a couple days and make these changes. --Aude 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I just moved the "driving tricks" to Wikibooks. There is also a FAQ on Wikibooks that's been started. I think wikibooks is a good place to provide more expansive information about the Prius for current and prospective owners. I'll keep working on cleaning up the notable facts, celebrities, and sales info, moving what's necessary to wikibooks. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed removal of sales section

I also propose taking out the "Sales" section. The point that there was strong demand, long waiting lists, etc., can be made elsewhere in the article. But these particular bullet points don't seem that useful and outdated. There is little or no waiting time now, for ordering a Prius. --Aude 17:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Actual sales data, as opposed to anecdotes of waiting times, can be useful. I have added some sourced figures regarding U.S. sales. Incidentally, with gas prices pushing $3.00/gal again in the U.S., the waiting lines are back. --Blainster 09:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Rumors?

I have long thought it odd that such an unasuming little car should be surrounded by such a vast body of fantastic rumors. I listed them in their own section and Kmf164 promptly pulled them. Is it innapropriate to round them up and thrust them into the harsh light of the Wiki?

I was going to defend it as being at least as useful as knowing that a minor actress on a minor show drives one for part of one episode, but I agree with Kmf164 that the celebrities should go.

Okay, here's what was deleted and why:

• For some reason this quiet, efficient, unassuming little car has been the subject of a continuous stream of bizarre rumors. These include:

"For some reason", what reason? And, instead of "this quiet, efficient, unassuming little car", how about simply "the Prius", and "bizarre rumors" - I'm not sure what you mean by bizarre and continuous. I don't like putting such putting forth such adjectives for the reader, but rather just present the facts (backup up with citations, sources).

• Toyota made and sold these strictly as a publicity move, not as an economically viable car, taking a loss on each sale in exchange for benefit to Toyota's image as a "green" company

We need some sources here. I have trouble with the word "strictly". Instead of listing this as a rumor, how about incorporating into the article, something about how the hybrid technology as part of Toyota's R&D and strategy.

• The cars are somehow unsafe to drive because they have dangerously strong electrical fields in them.

Where has this been a rumor? sources please. Instead, how about saying something in the article about the level of electrical charge, how it's channeled, in the car, and what steps Toyota has taken to ensure safety for occupants.

• The cars are somehow unsafe for emergency personnel after accidents due to their unusually large battery.

I've not heard this exactly as you word it "unusually large battery". Sources please. Though, the flow of electricity would be cut off anyway in an accident, but emergency personnel undergo special training for hybrids anyway to understand where the electrical (orange) wiring is, so they can avoid cutting it.

• The car will electrocute its occupants if it goes into deep water.

I've not heard this said anywhere. I don't think this is part of a "continuous stream of bizarre rumors". Though, if you can provide sources ...

• Buyers pay so much extra when they buy the car (as compared with a similar non-hybrid vehicle) that over the life of the car they will never save enough on gas to make up for the extra money they must pay up front.

I wouldn't necessarily call this a rumor, but it's a concern that some people have (in some cases, rightfully so). The mileage that a Prius gets is not near the 60 mpg (city) EPA estimate that's advertised. The mileage that a driver gets is highly dependent on driving conditions (traffic, length of commute, and many other factors). And how long people will keep the car also varies. Also, what about the price of gas, which varies greatly from place to place and over time? There are so many variables, that in *some* cases one might not save enough on gas to make up for the extra upfront cost with buying the car. I think we definitely need sources here.

• Electric cars are naturally slow and weak, and American drivers will find them frustrating to drive.

The Prius isn't an "electric" car. It's a hybrid. And singling out "American" drivers? Wikipedia also has a large non-American audience.

• The vehicle will actually create extra pollution because it has an oversize battery that will contaminate the enviroment after the car dies.

I've never heard this "rumor". Sources please.

• People who own Priuses are somehow less friendly or cooperative than drivers of other cars. (Perhaps a side effect of the dangerous magnetic fields in the car)

This sounds silly. I've never heard this and don't think this belongs in an encyclopedia.

• Toyota has been hoarding vital hybrid parts and technologies in the hope of hurting american manufacturers.

I've never heard this either. Where did you hear this rumor?

It takes only the most trivial research to disprove these rumours, and yet they keep coming. To some extent it may be that the car has become as much a symbol as it is an actual car.

How about doing some trivial research, provide just the facts, and back them up with sources? One of the key policies of Wikipedia is Verifiability. Providing sources and backing up facts, and not including heresay, would greatly improve the quality of this article. So, if we're going to add the "rumors", I think we need sources to back up these being rumors and some sources that dispel the rumors. Please also acquaint yourself with the Manual_of_Style and The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. With a better understanding of the policies and guidelines, you'll be better able to help improve the article. Right now it has too many lists and not enough facts, sources, etc. to make it a really great article. --Aude 03:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Better fuel efficiency in the city

I think this is true because the regenerative braking is more of a factor in city driving.

I'd also like to remove "The Prius gets better fuel efficiency in the city because the batteries get used more, whereas on the highway, the engine is used in order to recharge the batteries, and the wind resistance is higher." I'm not entirely sure what the EPA considers city driving, but this is contrary to my experiences, where my highway mileage is much better than my city mileage (which is still very good, but nowhere near 60 mpg in the city). --Aude 04:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Most Prius drivers get higher milage on city roads than on the highways. You may be an exception depending on your driving habits and conditions. I object to the removal of the sentence based on your experience only. People tend to travel on highway on long trip, but city driving are often for short trips. The Prius never gives good milage in the first 5 minutes because of the warmup wastes gas. Short trips hurt the milage, not city driving. That may explain your atypical experience. Frequent hard braking wastes gas too. People who anticipate red lights ahead of them often let the Prius coast without burning gas nor using the brake. Many people using the proper technique reported city mileage in the mid 60 mpg. However, highway milage will never reach the 60s due to non-stop engine usage and air resistence. Regardless of your driving habits, there is a difference in the potential. Not many people use the same driving style so not everyone can reach the potential of the car. Kowloonese 20:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Better city mileage is very much part of my experience -- I get something like 40 on the open road, and more like 55 in long city trips. (35 -45 on short city trips, depending on season), in my 2001 model. I believe that the difference in our experience can be chalked up to differences in driving style -- hybrid vehicle has a section on tactics for best fuel efficiency.

I think the problem is EPA's definition of "city". If you can drive at 45 mph in your "city", for a mile or two, then you can get 60 mpg. I've rented a Prius in other cities (e.g. Los Angeles), where I was able to achieve such driving and gas mileage. However, in Washington, D.C. where I drive most often, it's constant stop and go traffic (where anticipating red lights is impractical) and get around 40mpg. You're right about short trips, as a factor. Another factor is use of air conditioning or heating, which if minimized can greatly help mileage (which, with passengers I won't do). In EPA tests, they don't have AC/heating on. In the suburbs, where I can get stretches of 45-50 mph driving, I get mileage 50-60 mpg. And, on the highway, I easily get the EPA mpg of 51 or better. As for leaving the statement in the article, I'm fine with that if you can cite it on basis of real driving and not strictly EPA tests. Though, we might also need to define what EPA considers city driving (e.g. more suburban driving conditions, than stop-and-go city driving). -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what "city" meant by EPA, EPA did publish the two estimates and they were 51 highway and 60 city. You may argue the EPA city driving is nothing like your city driving. Likewise I also argue the EPA highway driving is nothing like anyone's highway driving. Anyway, propably only one in a thousand drivers can match these estimates in real life situations, hence it is adviced that buyers should use these estimates for comparison purpose only. i.e. if the city estimate is higher than highway estimate, it only means this car does better on city street under that particular test condition. You should not really expect 60 mpg unless your driving style matches the EPA testing conditions. I have read many posts on various Prius forums, my impression is that the majority of people get better mileage in city than on highway. Your experience is an exception. Regarding the sentence in the article, it is not 100% accurate to say the maximium use of the battery results in good milage. The real saving is in the shutting down of the engine. The electric motor takes over in some situations, but the motor does not save gas. The motor uses energy that traces back to the gas tank eventually. Only when the car is coasting without drawing any power from the battery nor the gas tank, then it is the most efficient state. You get more opportunities to coast in city than on the highway. If you time it right and minimize the use of the gas pedal and the brake, stop and go traffic offers you more opportunities to shut down your engine which in turn result in very good milage. When I see the road is jammed, I would just let the car roll slowly on its own, by the time I close the gap, the car in front moves forward already and the cycle repeats. Usually I can move the car at a steady slow pace to match with the stop and go pace. I touch on the gas or brake very lightly when the pace changes. The 5 minutes consumption bars often show in the range of 75 to 99 mpg when I am stuck in traffic like that. If you've never gotten that kind of milage, you are probably one of those who slams on the gas to catch up and then slams on the brake to stop before hitting the bumper in front of you. The "stop" part always wastes energy, the "go" part always uses energy, but the Prius's stop and go is guaranteed to be more efficient than any other cars' stop and go because the regen braking recover a small portion of the waste. Since the recovery cannot be 100%, braking always waste energy. You can maximized your mileage when you learn how to use steady pace avoid the "stop and go" in "stop and go" traffic. Kowloonese 00:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of our anecdotal experiences are, we need to cite such statements and comply with verifiability guidelines. In the section on "2004-2006...", it covers the fact about the Prius getting better fuel efficiency in the city, "...with 60 miles per US gallon (4.3 L/100 km) city and 50 miles per US gallon (4.7 L/100 km) highway (according to the EPA). When driven appropriately, commuting and mixed suburban drivers are reporting fuel consumption of 45 to 50 miles per US gallon (5.2 to 4.7 L/100 km)." I think this statement covers it well, with citations.

I have also looked up fuel efficiency estimates from Natural Resources Canada, which are 56.0 mpg (highway) and 58.8 mpg (city) [8], when converted from the litres/100 km format they use. Australia just gives a combined estimate, with 53.4 mpg for the Prius. [9] Both these estimates sound more realistic to me (especially the 56 highway), and I guess my problem is just with the way EPA does testing. But, if we say "according to the EPA", that's sufficient.

As for the paragraph in the previous section, "For any car, aerodynamic losses are much greater on the highway than in low speed city driving..." just doesn't sound right to me, too much unsubstantiated commentary, and lacks citations. I think we can reword this paragraph better and add citations. I'll think some more about how to do that. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The drag to the car in different speed can be computed using some known formula. See Drag (physics) for the drag equation. Based on the known equation and given the same air density, and same car shape, the drag on the car is proportional to the square of the velocity. i.e. when you double your speed, the drag on the car increase 4 folds. Isn't that strong enough support of that statement? What other citation do you need? Kowloonese 01:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have reworded the paragraph to provide references to aerodynamic and drag (physics), and attempted to clarify what's meant by "low power", and how the car captures kinetic energy through regenerative braking. My main concern now is with the sentence "This means the advantages of a hybrid are mainly in city driving. The hybrid has less of an advantage in highway driving" and the specific term, "advantage" and "mainly". Looking at Canadian fuel economy estimates, the difference between city and highway efficiency are not as great. And as you mention, the "advantages" during city driving may be offset by real-world conditions, such as driving techniques, use of air condition, short trips, etc. With my own driving, I do keep a steady pace, and my highway mileage is closer to Canadian estimates (56) than American estimates (51). So, to play up the advantages too strongly, the car has for city driving, I think can be misleading. The advantage can be mentioned, but with more subtle wording. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the sentence "This means the advantages of a hybrid are mainly in city driving. The hybrid has less of an advantage in highway driving" The Prius is more efficient than most of the cars in the market, in both highway and city driving. So the advantage is there. However, as the EPA estimate point out the city driving has a much greater advantage. e.g. comparing my Toyota Prius with my Acura MDX, 51mpg with 23mpg (highway) and 60 with 17mpg (city). The advantage on both are obvious, while the city advantage is proportionally greater. The problem sentence seems to imply that because of the better city advantage, the highway advantage disappears. That is bogus. Kowloonese 20:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Catalytic converter and engine shutdown (in How it works)

The following paragraphs are interesting ideas, but I do not find any articles supporting it. Doesn't shutting down the engine completely cool the catalytic converter more than idling? Is the powerful motor really helping to lessen the shock? Please provide the supporting materials. If nobody provides evidences, I will remove the following paragraphs. Lifetime 19:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As well as the immediate benefit of reducing fuel consumption and emissions, stopping the engine also improves the performance of the catalytic converter, as in a normal vehicle the exhaust gases from an idling engine tend to cool the catalysts below their optimal temperature.

Frequent starting up and shutting down of the engine does not cause additional wear and tear nor emission problems, as in conventional automobiles, because the drive motors have enough power to quickly and smoothly spin the engine to optimal rpm (around 1,000) before the engine actually begins to "fire up". This avoids wear when the engine is "running" (with fuel and spark) at very low rpm, as happens in most vehicles.

The second of those paragraphs has been documented by engineers several times on the Prius enthusiast Yahoo Gthoi 'Prius-2G'. In addition to getting the engine up to around 1,000 RPM, it also gets the oil pressure up before adding fuel and spark. I will try to dig up a more precise reference. The behavior is also dicumented on the enthusiast site, www.john1701a.com.

Trivia removed

I removed the folliwing trivia:

• Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, drives a Prius.
• Bill Maher, host of the HBO series Real Time with Bill Maher, drove a Prius for 3 years before trading it in for the Lexus RX 400h hybrid.
• Not only did actor Leonardo Dicaprio buy himself a Prius, he bought several for others in his family.
• Actresses Kirsten Dunst and Cameron Diaz both drive Priuses.

The reason is because I don't think it's noteable or significant enough anymore to note who drives Priuses. You're welcome to move the trivia to the page for that respective person. I've left in Priuses that appear in TV shows because these are more noteable. People watching the show will actually see the car for example. Having said that, given the increasing popularity of the Prius, we need to be careful not to add every single occurance of the Prius in a TV show or movie. Nil Einne 08:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've moved all the trivia to the respective celebirties page except for Sergey because it already mentions he drives a Prius Nil Einne 01:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Enthusiast sites

The list of enthusiast sites looks long. What do you recommend we do about it? Options:

1. Delete the entire section. Let people use Google to find enthusiasts sites.
2. Keep the top 3 or so. How are they ranked?
3. Leave it as is.

Daniel.Cardenas 19:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Two motors

The second section "How it works", in bullet number 2, states there are "two" electric motors in the Prius. But I only know of one drive motor. The Toyota Prius web page refers to one gasoline engine and one electric motor. Unless someone objects, I'll correct the reference next week. WVhybrid 03:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely two. They're needed to provide the variable gearing. See http://www.hybridsynergydrive.com/en/power_split_device.html and http://john1701a.com/prius/documents/Prius_Energy-Flow.pdf (pdf) --Cavrdg 12:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are incorrect about the number of electric traction motors. If you want to talk about non-traction motors, there are a lot. (And, yes, in fact, the Highlander Hybrid SUV and some Lexus cars have two traction motors.) There are least a dozen electric motors that provide hotel services for the Prius, including the air-conditioner/heat pump compressor, the air-conditioning air fan, the radiator fan, the fuel pump, the oil pump, braking boost system motor, the water pump, the three windshield wiper motors, the 4 power window motors, the CD player drive motor, the CD door drive motor, etc., etc. And from the specs there appears to be an electric motor (referred to as “electronically controled” in the specs) to position the planetary gears in the CVT, but that motor doesn’t provide traction.

The statement implies that there are two drive motors on the Prius, and, according the owner’s manual, the Toyota’s Hybrid Synergy Drive web page, and the Toyota web page, there are not. WVhybrid 19:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

From http://john1701a.com/prius/documents/Prius_Energy-Flow.pdf:

Electricity generated by the Small Motor is sent to the Power Inverter. This device decides whether the electricity should be used immediately by the Big Motor (50 kW) to provide extra thrust for the wheels, passed to the Battery-Pack for charging it, or directed to both at the same time.

So the small motor helps "drive" the car.

The specs talk about the larger motor but that doesn't mean the smaller motor doesn't exist.

I don't know where you got your info from the Synergy Drive web site. Daniel.Cardenas 19:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The Prius motor-generators are called MG1 and MG2. The Toyota site doesn't appear to have a diagram showing them at present but this pdf shows the three (MG1, MG2 and MGR) in the Highlander.--Cavrdg 19:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a matter of interpretation. If you talk about the motor generators as part of the drive train (a.k.a. the HSD hybrid synergy drive), then there are two motors, the MG1 and MG2. If you only talk about the one directly driving the wheels, then it is one of these two MGs. It does not make sense to exclude the other motor just because it is not directly driving the wheels. The ICE drives the planetary gear, not the wheels directly either, so if you insist the Prius only have one drive motor, then you need to also exlude the ICE by the same rule. In other words, it only make sense to talk about the whole drive train regardless which component drive the wheels directly. If you want to include the power window's motors also, then the Prius has numerous motors like any other cars. It is fair to say the Toyota has 2 electric motors in the drive train. For example, when the car is stationary and the ICE is running, one of the MGs has to spin backward like crazy to counteract the engine's spinning. Since both motors are in the drive train, the number should be two. Kowloonese 23:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

plug-in

"When compared to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, the fuel and emissions saving of the Prius is modest." How can we make a comparison with something that's not even sold as a production car? --cassini83 02:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks the Plug-in section is a bit too POV? Stev0 15:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Used as Source by Jeremy Clarkson

From the article:

Wikipedia says the Toyota Prius looks like and performs like a normal car but delivers 50% better fuel economy. That’s not true. A Prius doesn’t look or perform like a normal car and it will do only 45mpg — far, far less than you’d get from a Golf diesel, say.

Richard Taylor 02:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but a Golf (or any other) deisel couldn't be considered a normal car, could it? Stev0 07:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think restricting 'normal cars' to gasoline-fuelled ones would be an extremely narrow definition, especially given the popularity of diesel, which is entirely due to the excellent milage diesel engines give. The emissions from diesel are more polluting than from gasoline though, which is how I'd counter what Clarkson is saying, but unfortunately there's no denying that most small-to-medium-sized diesel cars will return significantly higher mpg than the Prius.

Diesel may be popular in Europe, but it certainly isn't popular in the US. Call it US-centric, but "normal" seems to imply gasoline burning to me. My average mileage in my Prius is in the 50 MPG range, with peaks well into the 60s and higher during the year. While it is true that you can get a small diesel that performs similarly, reaching up into the 50s and 60s, most comparably sized diesels like the Jetta would only be in the 40 MPG range.LaughingMan11 08:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Smart Key System

I'd just like to mention that at present, the right-hand drive models in Australia have the "Smart Key System", and it functions identically to the left-drive models described in the article.

Anybody mind if I shorten this down a bit? The page is pretty long and we don't need to know all the options for the SKS, just that it exists and basically what it does (also, consumers are becoming more familiar with this concept as it is now also showing up in other cars). If they want to know more, they can go to PriusChat or read their manual. Nerfer 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Addition of discussion of low-battery symptoms?

Hi, I know little about the cars, but I wanted to point out how Priuses react quite differently to a common and easy-to-diagnose condition in non-hybrid cars. Perhaps a mention of this could be added for other Prius drivers' benefit, and maybe start a section with other sorts of "when things go wrong" differences. My 2005 Prius had a battery that was going bad, not the hybrid battery but the other one. In a non-hybrid, this would be apparent as hesitation and slowness during cranking, especially when the car has sat for a while, and you would take it in for either battery or alternator replacement. In the Prius, the car had trouble 'booting'. Sometimes, it would have no response to the Power button, sometimes it would have a partial response but would not show the boxed READY on the dash, but generally, it would end up booting after a few attempts. This went on for a few weeks, and it was unclear what the problem was; the dealer didn't even figure it out when really they should have. Finally, one morning I tried to start the car, I couldn't, and it wouldn't return my key. I had the car towed and a mechanic at the same dealer figured out that the battery went bad. A common condition, easily diagnosed in a regular car, but in the Prius, it gave otherwise atypical symptoms.

useful information, but if we started adding this type of thing to an already-long page, it would quickly get completely unwieldy. Go to PriusChat.com or another website to share that information. Nerfer 06:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

hey yall

Profitability

(Proposed section)

I've heard that Toyota loses money on each Prius. If true, this would be a significant fact. I will attempt to research this. If anyone has any input, let 'er rip. LorenzoB 06:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy that. It does not make business sense unless Toyota gets something out of it. For example, I heard that Microsoft sells the XBox 360 at a loss because they want to build up momentum and put a set-top presence in people's living room. Besides, computer hardware parts cost drops rapidly in volume production. So the XBox will cost less to build over time and the initial loss would be temporary. For the Prius, some argue that the battery cost may drop in mass production. But rechargable batteries have been in high volume use for so many years in laptop and cellphone industry, the cost history does not show such a trend. Taking a loss on every car will eventually show up on their balance sheets. Like Chevolet, they produce some fake hybrid vehicles just as checklist items so that they can claim they also have hybrid. They don't need to promote those vehicle. If Toyota were really taking a loss, they would not promote the Prius so much to reduce the loss. Kowloonese 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that research. They may have lost money on the initial NHW10 version, but it wouldn't make business sense at this point, particularly since they're trying to ramp up production to 170K units this year. They also resisted raising prices during the years the Prius was continuously back-ordered. Altho to be honest, Toyota did not promote the Prius until this last month - at least no TV or radio ads that I saw/heard. Honda pulled the Insight, probably due to profitability. Nissan (using technology licensed from Toyota) claims it will lose money on the Altima Hybrid it is being "forced" to sell in California. Nerfer 05:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

According to CNW Marketing, about as anti-hybrid as a research place gets, hybrids produced a profit of $1375/vehicle in 2004 for the manufacturer, rising to almost $2000/vehicle in 2006. (p. 38 of the 2MB Dust Zip download, http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/) Nerfer 03:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The inital version for the US (NHW11) was at a loss (I'm told they cost ~ $50K each to produce and transport) but the NHW20 is profitable because it's per unit producation costs were greatly reduced. The next version is supposed to have an even lower per unit producation cost. Jon 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a link in the history section to an article at Mercury News saying it was unprofitable. I left this sentence in, although I modified it since it implied the Prius is still unprofitable, and I took out the link since it is now broken (article probably archived). Nerfer (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable facts

This is really a hodge-podge of things, I think this needs a complete rework. Anyone volunteer? Or complain if I did it next weekend or so? Nerfer 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparing price to "a decent home-theater system"?

The section "Better batteries/plug-ins" starts by comparing the price of battery pack options to the price of home-theater systems:

"These battery pack options are expensive at this time, comparable to a decent home-theater system."

I have no idea of the price of what the author considers to be a decent home-theater system, and it has nothing to do with cars.

I call for a better comparison, ideally a price range!

Erland Lewin 11:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Page layout is screwed up

Here's what it looks like on my computer: [10] Does anyone know why this is? No other wikipedia page looks like this. Esn 05:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No clue, page looks normal in IE6&7, maybe you could ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).--Van helsing 08:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Esn, that's how it looks for me too. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.3. Mahanga^Talk 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks fine now. Somebody must've changed something. Esn 08:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

L/100km?

Where are these values? They're commonly used in continental Europe instead of km/L which I've never even heard of used. - G3, 07:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we do math here? How about some new mileage math templates? --D0li0 10:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

use {{mpg|45}} to get 45 miles per US gallon (5.2 L/100 km; 54 mpg_‑imp)

use {{L100km|5.2}} to get 5.2 litres per 100 kilometres (54 mpg_‑imp; 45 mpg_‑US)

Plugin + diesel Prius?

Toyota has already hinted that they are willing to release diesel Prius hybrids. How hard is it to convert the existing ones to diesel? This would multiply the fuel efficiency increase of the plug-in modification. --76.217.90.99 07:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the higher mileage of a diesel is due in part because of the higher energy density of that fuel compared to gasoline. The first priority would be to have Plug-in hybrid versions of the Prius from Toyota, next I would like to see E85 Flex Fuel capabilities, and then perhaps diesel versions. Once we have fuel options that don't require Internal combustion then we can discuss the best method of combustion to use when we need to resort to burning fuel... --D0li0 11:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

From a technological standpoint, to switch any existing car from gasoline to diesel, you need to rip out the engine entirely and replace it with one designed to use diesel. There may be other parts that need totally replaced as well, but the engine is the most expensive one. Also at least in the US there are also a couple of major drawback to diesel vechicles compared to normal gasoline, starting with fuel avaiablity. It's not nearly as bad as trying to find an E-85 station though. The other issue is while during most of the year it is cheaper to run diesel than gasoline, during the fall the realtive prices reverse as gasoline prices drop as the summer travel ends and diesel prices soar as lots of harvest related farm vechicles get used. Jon 19:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Rumor Mill

Fyi: Article says Toyota is delaying Li-on version because of safety concerns. [11] Daniel.Cardenas 15:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I archived discussions prior to 2007, per wikipedia procedure wp:archive. There is a link at the top of the discussion page: /Archive 1 Daniel.Cardenas 15:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a tidbit of new information relating to Li-ion batteries for the Prius, might merit an update of the "Future of the Prius" section: [12]RoyalDoyle (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Small"?

"Copy phone numbers to the Prius' (small) internal phone book (some allow them to be sent all at once)."

I just bought a 2007 (option package #4 with JBL system if that makes any difference). I can copy up to 1000 entries from my phone (each entry containing up to 2 numbers). Did previous models have a much smaller capacity? Either way, I think we should replace "small" with "up to 1000 entries", or "up to 1000 entries on the 2007 model, XXX on 2004 - 2006" if it was indeed lower before. --Fo0bar 10:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional recall

I was at the dealer for my 30K milage maintenance yesterday and they said they had a 2004-2006 recall notice out for something involving steering. (I hadn't noticed any problems) Jon 17:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Already in the article (second paragraph of recall section). --KJBracey 10:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph

I think the intro paragraph should give the most interesting information about the Prius and not mundane information such as: "The 2000 model Prius slotted between the Echo and Corolla in the company's North American lineup...". Most interested info is that it is greenest high production car available. Highest mileage and very low smog causing pollution. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas 22:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you're right.Ken McE 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Further CNW study refutation

this article from the Better World Club further refutes the CNW study. I don't know if you want to work that into the article, or stay with the one cite for the refutation. Improbcat 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like additional info, I'll add it. --JWB 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Stealth mode" and pedestrian safety?

Has there been any discussion of the possible dangers posed to pedestrians (and possibly bicyclists) by the "stealth mode"? I've had a Prius roll by me in a parking lot and it was very disconcerting. --69.255.17.40 04:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There is the note on quietness under safty? Does anyone have a reference to a primary source (e.g., safty research or a blind peoples organisation)? I suspect that that would give better information on the seriousness of the issue, compared to a newspaper article that may or may not be neutral.

In the quietness subsection of the safety section, I think the newspaper cited, the Wall Street Journal, is a reliable secondary source. They did not say there are safety problems, they reported on peoples' and organizations' concerns about safety risks. I don't see how there's anything disputable in the article to raise a neutrality issue; the article careful relied on quotations and attributions. The wiki article's section under safety seemed worded to correctly reflect that. (I modified it just now, and aimed at retaining that). The WSJ article also mentioned the National Federation for the Blind's stance. In adding to the section, I included a primary source (2006 Resolutions, as reported by the NFB) on advocacy by the NFB (other material is at quietcars.nfb.org). I also added a StarTribune.com-referenced sentence that a toyota spokesperson said they were aware of the problem. Again, I think neutrality isn't an issue on this - they're a reputable organization reporting a sourced quotation. -Agyle 01:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Earlier in the article, there's also mention of the stealth/quietness issue. It does not seem so carefully worded, and does not provide a citation for those specific claims. I'm not sure how to link from there down to the quietness paragraph under safety issues, but it seems like that would be useful. I also think the strength of claims made in those earlier sentences should be tempered, unless actual safety research can be cited to support the claims. -Agyle 01:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The "controversy" - Prius vs. other transportation alternatives

What's the point of all the talk about the old model?

Revised Fuel Mileage Ratings Similar to Efficient Non-Hybrid and Clean Diesel Vehicles
For 2008 the US EPA has revised all fuel mileage estimates for all vehicles from 1986 to the present (including the Prius) to reflect more realistic MPG results for modern driving.[94] Under the revised ratings, the 2000-2003 NHW11 Prius is now rated for 42 City and 41 Highway. The 2000-2003 Prius has lower highway fuel mileage, but higher city mileage compared to equivalent model year non-hybrid or diesel engine powered cars. [95]. Equivalent year diesel Volkswagen Jetta Golf and New Beetles produced higher highway mileage (35 City and 44MPG highway) [96] [97] Earlier model year vehicles such as the Chevrolet Metro [98] or Honda Civic HX [99] provide comparable or better highway mileage than the NHW11 Prius.
The 2004-2008 NHW20 Prius is now rated for 48 City and 45 Highway[100], which is a reduction of 12 MPG and 6 MPG respectively. This is the highest city MPG of any vehicle sold in the United States. The 2008 Honda Civic Hybrid matches the highway MPG [101].

The Prius is in its fifth model year since the NHW11, and there were fewer than 50,000 of the earlier models sold in the U.S.; there have been over 500,000 U.S. sales of the NHW20. Maybe the information on the old model has historical interest, but I think the heading of this section is misleading. I'll take a shot at an edit in a week or two unless someone points out an error in my reasoning. TomSchaffter (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following paragraph because I believe it is "original research" (OR), and as such contraves the "No original research" policy (WP:NOR). It also contains examples of "weasel words" (see WP:WEASEL).

It is sometimes claimed that diesel engine cars or minicars also get good mileage, or even consume less fuel than the Prius. Prius advocates reply that some of these claims are false or exaggerated, and that while some other cars may have a slight advantage in miles per gallon of fuel, this does not take into account other disadvantages of diesel such as pollution, fuel availability, and maintenance; that diesel fuel is more carbon-dense than gasoline so that comparison by volume (e.g. gallons or liters) favors diesel more than comparison by fuel weight or by carbon dioxide emissions; that the amount of currently wasted used vegetable oil available for conversion into biodiesel is limited; while minicars are far smaller and less suited to applications where more passenger or cargo space is needed or where a very small car may be less safe.[30]

The reference [30] is Prius vs. diesel, minicars on www.priuschat.com.

The WP:NOR policy is very clear. In its What is excluded? section it states that original reasearch includes: "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position", and "any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article". The list "An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:" includes "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source".

The paragraph in question introduces an "analysis" of opinions, and so is OR. The source does not say "It is sometimes claimed that diesel engine cars or minicars also get good mileage", or "Prius advocates reply that some of these claims are false or exaggerated". Those views may be made in the referenced source, but that analysis of them is not present. A reference for that analysis needs to be cited.

Another approach is to add the verifiable views of notable commentators or experts on the subject, and to attribute them as such, and not to draw your own concusions as to what they mean. That is where the "weasel words" need to be addressed. The Wikipedia manual of style condemns weasel words (WP:WEASEL), and gives examples such as "Most scientists believe that...", and "it could be argued". The paragraph in question uses "It is sometimes claimed...", and "Prius advocates reply...", which are weasel words. The solution is to correctly attribute the words to the particular person or people that have made those claims, or who have raised those arguments.

-- de Facto (talk). 10:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph does not offer an original analysis or synthesis of the arguments used by the participants in the cited debate; it simply reports them. Summarization and paraphrase are not original analysis/synthesis; if they were, Wikipedia would have to be made only of direct quotations from other sources.

The paragraph reports the arguments used by all sides in the debate, as mandated by WP:NPOV, rather than just one side's argument. In fact the length of the cited debate shows those arguments in more detail than would be possible in the limited length of a news story.

The paragraph is in the "Controversy" section, where the primary subject being reported on is the controversy itself. The debate on PriusChat is a primary source showing an instance of this controversy, and demonstrating that the said arguments are actually made by the participants. The article paragraph does not assert the truth or falsity of the particular arguments used. Each point alone represents a debate which is too large to be included in this section of this article; readers interested in evaluating an argument can follow the link to the Wikipedia article on the subject, or to the cited reference.

WP:WEASEL is not a mechanical prohibition of words like "some". Please read WP:WEASEL#Follow the spirit, not the letter. This is not a case where one faction's opinion is advanced in isolation and then implied to be a consensus. In any case, WP:WEASEL suggests editing to add specificity, or tagging to suggest other editors do so; it does not call for mass deletion of content. You may if you like replace "some Prius proponents" or "the Prius advocates in the cited debate" with the specific names of the posters, although common sense would suggest this does not improve the article, and that the former attribution is accurate and more meaningful.

--JWB 12:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, which Discussion forums fail. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others include Wikipedia:No original research . Anyone can create a website, start a Discussion forum, pay to have a book published post on a chat forum, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, forums and blogs are not acceptable as sources.--Hu12 14:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on September 5, 2007, this good article candidate was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. {{{comments}}} I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.— Pursey 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Flagging sales," paywalled source

Bobo159 removed part of a sentence citing an April 2006 article that said "...amidst flagging U.S. Prius sales reported by CMWMR despite higher gas prices...," with the comment that it was contradicted by monthly sales figures, and that the article was paywalled. According to the Wikipedia article's (unreferenced) monthly sales figures, early 2006 sales were off from 2005, and April 2006 well off from April 2005. I replaced the "flagging sales" part with direct quotes to avoid characterizing the sales reduction. The link is paywalled, but it's not clear to me that's disallowed in WP references. I read it via highbeam.com, the source returned by philly.com, which is owned by the originating newspaper (the Philadelphia Inquirer). (I changed the reference from a link to saying it was retrieved via a paywalled archive search on philly.com). I accessed the article online, and according to WP:CS, said where I got the information. I think the intermediary source and the originating source are both considered reliable. Here is the Philly article's text in question:

"Still, Americans will sacrifice only so much, even during a gas crunch. For example, hybrid-vehicle sales actually have decreased since November, when fuel prices began to rise, Spinella said. Sales of Toyota's hybrid Prius have dropped 23 percent over the last year, he said. For most people, hybrids are a fashion statement, not indicative of any real concern, Spinella said."

-Agyle 07:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed a good portion of this. Flagging sales was really misleading, since the long-term trend is clearly up. There were some downturns, one in early 2006 due to the Prius line being used to ramp up early production of the new Camry Hybrid, and again in Oct 2006 when the tax incentive dropped by half. I think Spinella timed his news release to his advantage. Also end of 2007 might have been affected by earthquake damage at a key hybrid component factory in Japan. Still, the long-term averages have gone up (don't have the link real handy, unfortunately) year-over-year, and 2007 was the best year yet with an increase of 70% (Prius now outsells all Subarus in the U.S., for instance). Nerfer (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Other point of view in "Disappointing and overstated fuel consumption" section

Although I believe the facts presented in that section are accurate, I recall reading in some Consumer Reports special "auto" edition (which year(s) ???) that the Prius was the highest-ranked car in the "would buy again" category. If someone have these magazine handy, please update. Thanks, JMR 205.205.248.69 02:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cnn covered that, among other sources. However, I think that's not a random survey, but magazine subscribers who wrote in. (I could be wrong). I would guess there are similar random surveys from more authoritative sources like JD Powers. However, the issue doesn't refute the overstatement of fuel consumption, or resulting disappointment of buyers. Both can be true; I'd buy one again, but agree that the US-mandated tests overstate typical mileage. (Or overstated; new standards next year?) It might be worked into that section, but they're not contradictory facts. -Agyle 02:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not correct regarding Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports surveys are the results of the annual survey of all subscribers of the magazine. Also at issue is the claim that JD Powers is more authoritative than Consumer Reports. The surveys of the non-profit Consumer Reports are paid for by the subscribers of the magazine, while JD Powers & Associates is an ~80-year old marketing firm often hired by auto companies to prepare marketing information that can be pro or anti regarding a particular product. (A point of disclosure, this writer subscribes to Consumer Reports. Of note, Consumer Reports is fully funded by the subscribers, and does not accept advertising or payments from industry sources.)

This may also be the place to point out that the mileage claims are mandated by US law, and, in order to "protect" the consumer, cannot be altered by the manufacturer. Your complaint regarding mileage should be lodged with the U.S. EPA, not Toyota. WVhybrid 03:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The NYT article referring to JD Powers says "If fuel consumption was the top complaint for the Prius, it still came in best among compact cars, with just 81 complaints over all per 100 vehicles." It is not at all clear that JD Powers or NYT are trying to make the Prius look bad. It just means that complaints from other sources are even lower. Whoever selectively added the partial quote out of context to Wikipedia may well have been trying to make the Prius look bad.

CR has had several reports and surveys since then that all give the Prius top ratings. Reports are by CR's testers, not readers. --JWB 07:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dual-Drive Mode - What the crap is this??

Why is the section on "Dual-Drive Mode" [I thought it was called Synergy] a poorly written explanation of an electric motor? 136.176.8.22 16:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It cites no sources, poorly explains the workings of an electric motor, [Which is not the same as an electromagnet] and appears to explain what is already available under Toyota Hybrid Drive. I'm going to delete it. 136.176.8.22 16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the first part of text was good for the electric motor article. Daniel.Cardenas 17:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a big deal

My 1996 Nissan 1.6L 200SX with close to 400,000 miles gets 41MPG mixed city and highway. A car that is designed to be fuel efficient should have well over 70MPG and definitely do better than an 11 year old car. Comments within this page referencing the Prius as exceptionally high gas mileage should be removed as being opinion and/or advertisement.128.12.168.7 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. I had a 1987 Sentra (base model) that got 40 mpg on the highway, 36 mpg mixed driving. They could make a car even better today if they sacrificed a little performance from what we now expect. However, the Prius does get the best mileage of any car currently sold in the U.S. by EPA, and real-world averages reported by drivers show about 47-48 mpg in mixed driving. Careful drivers with a good commute can get over 60mpg average (I get 50 mpg overall). Only the Civic Hybrid comes close. Plus, I don't know about your 200SX, but my Sentra didn't have air bags, power steering, power brakes, power seats, power locks, power windows, passenger-side rear-view mirror, traction control, CVT, 3-point seatbelts all around, etc. Nerfer (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Average annual miles for UK cars

The article gives a figure of 13,000 to 14,000 kilometres as the UK average miles travelled by car; and it gives a reference to the ASA judgement which states that figure. But it's not clear to me that the ASA judgement is stating the figure as the UK annual mileage; I thought the ASA judgement was taking data from charts supplied to it by Toyota. Toyota may not have been supplying those charts to support its assumption about annual miles covered.

The UK motoring organisation has been reported as saying in 2002 that the UK annual average was 10,000 miles; http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/articles/31-01-02_1 says

"A cursory glance at the mileages of used cars on Britain's forecourts suggests that the annual average miles covered might be on the increase, but the RAC report sample says that 10,000 miles p.a. has remained a constant for the last 13 years. The official Transport Statistics Great Britain annual confirms this view."

Further, the average number of vehicles per household is said to be 1.5; it seems plausible that one vehicle covers more miles than the other. And so, when considering a vehicle from the standpoint of CO2 emissions, it may be that the would-be purchaser intends to use the lower-CO2 vehicle for the higher mileage.

And in http://www.toyota.co.uk/C1725/?CampaignID=C2494&BrochureRCode=RC25905&TestdriveRCode=RC25915&LandingPage=KW_Prius_WhatCar

Toyota still advertises that "The Prius emits 1 tonne less CO2 per year than a family saloon".

All in all, I don't believe that the ASA judgement casts any light on the Prius's environmental performance.

Tim Martin

Tim2718281 (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

The NHW20 section is way longer than it needs to be, it's describing some common vehicle technologies in excruciating, unnecessary detail. I'm gonna be going through and removing information, as thus. Bluetooth and Smart Key blurbs will be greatly reduced, among things. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an article clean up tag. I would like to help. Here's my ideas.

• Make sure the references are first rate and in the proper format.
• Make sure we use citations to back up our writing, not just write about our opinions.
• Make sure the sections are chosen correctly and similar to other car articles that are GA or FA.
• Let's work with each others to make it happen! I pledge to come to this article every time I visit Wikipedia, at least for the next month.

Congolese (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that some of the sections could be re-ordered, re-done, or in rare cases, eliminated. If ideas, mention them. I'll start work on the non-controversial sections first. I'll check the photos to make sure they're legal. Wish ourselves luck! Congolese (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Done Images are all free use, no fair use images, no illegal images. Congolese (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we move or at least critically re-evaluate how much of engine techology should be in the article. Other car articles don't have details about how a gasoline engine works. Congolese (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen Prius moving

I am moving this section, which is near the end of the article to the section on models, as this is a variant of a model.Congolese (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

NHW vs. NWH

The article is inconsistent in its use of "NHW" vs. "NWH", with multiple instances of each. As far as I have been able to determine (see edmunds.com or priuschat.com) "NHW" is correct and I am editing the article to reflect that. Just in case "NHW" is not correct, someone else please edit them all the other way. --DavidConrad (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Name

Propose to integrate the name history into the article and delete it as a separate section. Propose to revamp the argument on what to call 2 or more Prius cars (Prii, Priora, Prius, etc.) The Ford Taurus article does not have a debate over whether it's Taurii or Tauruses. Suggest any argument be merged with the Latin article or simply delted or mentioned as a footnote. Congolese (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "integrate it into the article"? It is in the article already. I have no idea about the Taurus and its name, but the Prius's name has been a notable topic and verifiable references are provided for it. --JWB (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

reserve for regenerative braking

Why would a battery need a reserve for regenerative braking? Even if it is somehow true, it doesn't make sense to the average reader, which I consider myself to be in this case. A reserve is meant for something that is intended for consumption, not something one may add to.

They are normally charged to 40-60% of maximum capacity to prolong battery life as well as provide a reserve for regenerative braking;

Rosenbluh (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Solar Prius" subsection

The link to the Detroit News article on the solar cells put on the roof of hybrid cars is no longer available online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LochNess (talk • contribs) 03:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Protectionism/Nationalism

I have deleted the following:

... however, even though most of the vehicles are produced in plants in North America, the fact it is a Japanese company means driving a Prius would conflict with the beliefs of protectionist or nationalist Americans, especially since domestic manufacturers such as General Motors and Ford Motor Company now offer hybrid vehicles vehicles of their own

The reason is because even though Toyota is headquartered in Japan and it is listed on a Japanese stock exchange, foreigners can be shareholders, which means an American can partially own Toyota.

Also, there is no evidence that driving a Prius goes against protectionist American beliefs because we don't know where the components and even the components of the components come from and who they ultimately benefit. Remember that many Toyota shareholders may be non-Japanese people.

Furthermore, Ford and GM may be heavily foreign owned. It all depends on the nationality of shareholders. GM is I estimate 10 per cent owned by Arab investors.

--Knowledge-is-power (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

2001 / "Classic" available options

A few commonly-held but nonetheless incorrect thoughts about the 2001 model and the classic model in general keep appearing in the classic section. I'm putting this here so all of you know to kill these items should they show up again.

1) "The 2001 Prius had no options." Incorrect. Options included cruise control, single cd player, 5-disk cd changer, leather seats, alarm system, glass breakage sensor, VIN etching, and side air bags. It also has the controls for the nav system. I haven't found a 2001 model that has the nav system installed, but you can probably bet that it exists at least on some of the later models since the controls are there. Note that the nav system for this model IS available for purchase from Toyota as a separate part, so it's a safe bet that it was available at purchase time.
2) "The Classic Prius after 2001 had no options other than cruise control and a navigation system." Incorrect. See above.
3) "The Classic Prius air conditioning would only work if the engine was on." This is partially true, but not completely. The AC will run on these models with the engine off, such as when at a stoplight, but the engine will cycle on and off once per minute or so in order to keep the compressor working adequately. 72.177.40.111 (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fashion Statement

The Prius's shape gives it a low 0.26 coefficient of drag.[92]

In spite of the efficiency of the Prius's shape, in 2004, industry analyst Art Spinella of CNW Marketing Research (CNWMR), whose skepticism towards hybrids is well known (see Lifetime energy cost), said "the Prius was a fashion statement", attributing its success over the Honda Civic Hybrid, which has a nearly identical appearance to its non-hybrid versions, to its distinctive styling, which lets "other people know the driver is driving a hybrid vehicle". However, this does not explain the lack of success for the even more distinctive Honda Insight.[93]. (Excluding the fact that demand for two-seaters is far less than that for four-seaters.)

In July 2007 the The New York Times[94] published an article using data from CNW Marketing Research finding that 57% of Prius buyers said their main reason for buying was that "it makes a statement about me.", while just 36% cited fuel economy as a prime motivator. Shortly afterwards Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson coined the term "Prius politics" to describe a situation where the driver's desire to "show off" is a stronger motivator than the desire to curb greenhouse gas emissions.[95]

I'd like to remove the whole section about the Prius being a fashion statement. The section is above. Most people buy a car for its looks. There's no surprise that people like appearances, and studied back this up for every car type. Yet are we going to put a section on fashion statements on every car model's Wikipedia page?

Plus even though Art Spinella says something, his reasoning is can be wrong. That the Prius sells more than the Civic Hybrid may be due to the Prius being more fuel efficient (the Prius consumes 4.4 L/100km while the Civic Hybrid consumes 5.6 L/100km). One way the Prius is more fuel efficient is its low coefficient of drag. Plus the Prius has four seats rather than two.

--Knowledge-is-power (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. For future reference, please follow wikipedia convention of putting new talk sections at the bottom. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. While I agree that overall a critical factor in buying cars is looks, the Prius distinctive style is definitely intentional and a major selling point for Toyota (in addition to fuel efficiency). The NYT article is good evidence to that claim, and I believe that section should stay. I also believe similar sections should appear in other car pages where there's distinctive variations from the common styles (eg. the Pontiac Aztek, PT Cruiser, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDNick484 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this article about the Prius or about CNW Marketing Research? It is hard to tell. The group in question have already had their analyses disproven, so why are non-reliable sources given so much weight? Red Harvest (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This section has to go for several reasons. 1. By its nature it is a POV trap and relies on a biased, discredited marketing firm's claims for its very existence. (Undue weight to a biased source.) 2. The need for a low drag coefficient and 4 passenger seating/cargo space define the shape--the latest images of the Volt and the new Insight reveal very similar contours to the Prius (function defines form.) 3. It really isn't relevant with gasoline prices where they have been over the past year. There is ample economic justification as shown in Consumer Reports and other's cost analysis. 4. Comparison reviews of the Honda Civic Hybrid have favored the Prius in terms of performance, and passenger/cargo space, so this is an apples to oranges comparison. Red Harvest (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This section has to stay, because the Prius has undeniably become an iconic car. This has nothing to do with its styling but its hybrid technology, combining three selling points in one car: technologically advanced, green and different. I see a need by some to combat the notion of the Prius being a fashion statement. It is a fashion statement and as such added 'green' as another buying factor alongside hp, speed, cost, size and luxury. It also broke with the general image that 'going green' needs sacrifices in usability, comfort and performance. It is an essential part of the story of the Prius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.35.218 (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

CNW

The CNW marketing study is subject to some fairly basic criticism, that it over-weights manufacturing costs (compared to running costs) by a factor of 50 or so.

[Google cnw+prius].

I've marked the reference to them as disputed, although my impression is that it should probably be removed entirely.

I put a discussion of this at the Petroleum-electric hybrid vehicle page. It pertains to all hybrids, so more properly belongs there anyway (altho the Prius is seen as the flagship hybrid vehicle, so it naturally attracts a lot of the discussion common to all hybrids). Nerfer 20:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The CNW marketing study was also referenced in this article [13] _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 12:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, for reference, the way the CNW report works is this: most of it appears somewhat reasonable, until the last section - the "social expenditure" - there is no explanation of what this supposed (large) expenditure is [apart from a completely uninformative analogy with coffee]. As far as I can see, that section is simply a complete fiction to make the numbers come out the way the author wanted.

Deletion of CNW Research

I would like to the see the CNW research removed. It has been disproven by science. To insist it stays is like insisting that tarot reading be included in an article about astrophysics.

If no one objects when I come back, I will delete it.

Knowledge-is-power 03:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I object. If you're talking about CNW's "SUVs are greener than Priuses" research, it is a controversy, correctly listed under controversies, with opposing views presented. If it has been "disproven by science," then the science can and should be cited in the article. I know of no published scientific papers addressing CNW's study. It's been covered by major media (nbc/today us news chicago tribune/san fran union tribune), used in ad campaigns (greenest car on earth!), and commonly cited in Prius/hybrid criticisms. Tarot reading is controversial too, but there's a (neutrality-disputed) wikipedia article on it. :-) -Agyle 06:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Its junk, it doesn't list its sources. The major media covers a bunch of junk, but that doesn't get listed in Wikipedia either. Daniel.Cardenas 08:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The CNW study was a notable work, and it was covered by the press worldwide. Whether you, or anyone else agree with its findings is not the point, the point is whether what is written here about it can be verified from acceptable sources. As the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy puts it: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". It should stay. -- de Facto (talk). 09:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should stay because of notability (as with various urban legends), but it's lack of credibility should be directly noted, otherwise it will have to be removed as it is not a reliable source. This is a marketing study, not a scientific study. There are a host of reliable sources that have disputed its methodology. I've replaced the weasel word "controversial" with "discredited" because that is in fact what the other sources are doing, discrediting the study, not agreeing with it. Red Harvest (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been challenged, by 'environmental groups' amongst others, and it has been robustly defended. To use the word 'discredited' you'll need a reliable source to attribute it to someone, otherwise it is a personal POV, or original research. Until such a source is provided it should remain as 'controversial'. -- de Facto (talk). 06:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Robustly defended"? They discredited their own study when they updated it to prove their own initial conclusions were incorrect! All the sources in the section demonstrate the methods and conclusions of this non-credible marketing study are erroneous. The attribution is already there, it is not original research. You are giving UNDUE weight to a non-credible and self-contradicting source. "Controversial" is a weasel word used to deny the obvious and give undue weight to discredited marketing study. Unless you can find independent, credible support for the study, "discredited" is an accurate descriptor. The credibility of the study has been adequately challenged and the challenges have been inadequately answered. Unless you can find support from a credible and reliable source that this study was accurate, then "discredited" will stand. Red Harvest (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If anything, the undue weight is being given to the criticism of the report. The policy states that the proportion of cover given to a particular view or fact should be proportionate to the number of reliable sources carrying that view or fact. The fact that CNW issued the report has been covered far and wide in the media. Criticism of the report is not so widely covered in reliable sources. Your own personal view as to whether published criticism of the report amounts to its discrediting is nothing more than that - a pesonal POV, and as such has no place here. Further, without a reliable source for the synthesis you make above, it can only be described as original research which also has no place here. I suggest the removal of the word "discredited" until sufficient and reliable sources for its attribution can be found. -- de Facto (talk). 08:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no "controversy" over the report at this point. It has been discredited by other more sober analyses (as well as credible scientific studies that preceded it.) I've not found any independent support for its assertions or independent support of its methodology from a credible source. It was not peer reviewed prior to publication. The only people that appear to be defending it are its authors, and they are not qualified to do this sort of cradle to grave analysis. (See Cold Fusion for what happens when folks stray well outside their discipline and rely on faulty methods to make sensational claims.) Additionally, their own updates have effectively discredited the orignal report already. CNW Research is clearly not a credible/reliable source. The main stream media has moved on, but you can find many hits for "discredited" in connection with this report. There is nothing undue about the counter arguments to the report being made--unless one considers presenting the reader with the inner workings of the report as being undue. That's the root problem with the study: upon close examination the assumptions are an embarassment to the authors and discredit the report. You seem to be trying to make a case for the credibility of the report. Calling it controversial rather than discredited ignores developments after the study's initial release and hoopla. You've injected quite a bit of POV by claiming it has been "robustly defended." I can list various sources that outright call the report "discredited" on the basis of the rebuttals, but they are of essentially the same partisan quality as the discredited study. I'm not interested in engaging in wikilawyering as you seem to practice on this topic. Red Harvest (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus should determine whether or not "controversial" or "discredited" is a better summary of the sources. I changed it to "discredited" because reading the section "controverial" appears to be a weasel word granting de facto credibility to something that is not considered credible. Red Harvest (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I see this was reverted again (without description) after another editor removed it (without comment). Consensus can be used to establish appropriate weight, but not to assert such a POV (see WP:NPOV). Reliable attribution is certainly required for such a claim, and to avert future "edit wars" over whether it is a justified assertion or not. -- de Facto (talk). 07:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough of the wikilawyering for your POV. What you are defending is not reliable or credible and as a result has undue weight by being on the page at all. At the very best it is junk science that has not been supported. Other than media coverage it would not even be here because it would fail a number of tests. The other sources do a fine job of discrediting this for-profit trash. There is no controversy remaining. Nobody has been able to restore credibility to the study. The authors' own revisions have disproven their thesis. You have so far provided no support for your argument that this is "controversial" rather than "discredited." It is not a claim as you suggest, it is a summary. Summarizing is fine as long as it does not mislead about what the sources have to say, there is no disconnect between "discredited" and what the reviews of the "study" say in the body of the section. In this case calling a for-profit, non-objective, non-peer reviewed, marketing study "controversial" is misleading to the reader. Doing so pushes your POV and gives undue weight to what is known as junk science. The approach you are using makes wiki non-encyclopedic. Red Harvest (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear what the priciples are here.

1. We should not care whether the CNW report is junk science or not - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:VER), we only need to decide if the amount of cover it has received in reliable sources is sufficient to give it enough weight to include it in this article - "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each (WP:UNDUE).
2. If we decide that the CNW report deserves coverage, we then need to decide, based on the proportionate amount of cover given to it, how much weight to give to any criticism of the report. I suggest that as there is less cover given to the criticism, it should have less article space than the report content itself.
3. Whether we should defy the WP:OR policy and, based on personal POV and original synthesis of the critical reports of the study, describe the report as "discredited" without attributing that description to a reliable source - "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented" (WP:OR).
4. Whether we should follow the WP:BURDEN policy - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". A 'fact' tag should not be removed without replacing it with an appropriate reference.

-- de Facto (talk). 18:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent)

User:DeFacto always trots out "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" when pushing this POV, without reading the rest of WP:V that includes that the source must be reliable and not questionable. They should also not be self-published, and if they are self-published they should not be contentious.

Please accept my contributions in good faith, and don't characterise them as "pushing this POV". I agree that the source should not be from CNW themselves, but from an independent reliable source, but that was not the subject of this discussion. The point we are exploring is whether we have adequately sourced the use of the word "discredited" to describe the report, and I don't think that we have. -- de Facto (talk). 21:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when your only contributions to this article are to insert "studies" (used loosely) that push one particular point-of-view [14] is patently unacceptable, and causes one to lose that good faith. Maybe if you could contribute from an NPOV, it would be easier to assume good faith, but you're not, and you're pushing hard for inclusion of cruft. You have nothing resembling consensus with this article, in fact just about every editor disagrees with you on your interpretations of policy. Are you hoping to wait people out like what happened with the Sunday Times article? Justinm1978 (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My only contributions have been to insert "studies"?!!! I've made close to 200 edits on this article, including restructuring, reference formatting, NPOVing of fancruft and much cleaning. -- de Facto (talk). 22:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why should we? You are accusing us of POV while defending a study which does not meet wiki's standards for reliability. The only reason for including it is notability. As far as I can tell the critics conclusions have not been cast in serious doubt. Red Harvest (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending the study, just the principle that discussion of it should be included, and from a NPOV, that criticism of it should be proportional to its coverage, and that any derogatory description of it should be correctly attributed. -- de Facto (talk). 22:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the CNW paragraph certainly belongs, but even by their own admission in their 2007 Marketing update, they essentially debunked their own previous assertion, thereby making the "hummer is better than a prius" argument patently discredited. This isn't original research, this is reading the facts as presented, and coming to the same conclusion. If you can't understand that, then I'm sorry, but that doesn't change the issue that your "fact" tag has been answered by the next paragraph.

That's your synthesis of the published data - and that is original research. A reference is required to attribute exactly who has described the report as being "discredited", especially as the use of the term in this has been challenged.. -- de Facto (talk). 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. It says in the very next paragraph that they came up with a different result the second time around. Please explain how that is NOT discrediting their own research. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Add a reliable inline reference which makes that case then - to show it isn't your own synthesis. My personal POV as to whether they discredit their own work is of no more value than yours - so it is also irrelevant. -- de Facto (talk). 23:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not synthesis. It is summary. Red Harvest (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it your own summary (WP:OR), or the summary from a reliable source? -- de Facto (talk). 23:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a summary from the sources are already listed as I've maintained from the beginning. I guess I could insert every adjective they used to describe it instead, but that wouldn't be a summary now would it? What struck me in first reading the section was how out of whack the first sentence was with the content. This is an open and shut case. There is no dispute that the firm did not use standard scientific method or that they have invalidated their initial claim. Since all you are doing is resisting consensus on something you are now admitting is not credible (below), I consider the matter closed. Red Harvest (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we need a repeat of the "Top Gear" situation where you continually inserted unreliable, POV material into the article? Your edit history shows a very clear bias against the Prius and you have been actively seeking to inject that bias into the article for the past several months. Enough is enough. Revert again, and you will force this issue to mediation. If you want it back, take it to Third Opinion and get someone neutral to review this. Justinm1978 (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not inserted any unreliable material that I am aware of - do you know otherwise? The discussion about the Top Gear test is still ongoing. The outstanding issue there is whether there is sufficient reliable data to add enough weight for inclusion. My only objective is to improve the neutrality of coverage of the Prius, and to attempt to improve the quality of referencing in the article. Check again my edit history here to see the amount of time I have spent doing just that. I do note a distict inconsistency here, with a willingness to accept unchallenged, the pro-Prius POV pushing which takes place, yet as soon as something less favourable appears it is pounced upon immediately. -- de Facto (talk). 21:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. User:DeFacto is misapplying the burden of proof to create an undue impression of an unreliable source that refuted itself in updates after criticism. The burden of proof should be on whether the defenders of the study can prove any credibility. There is no evidence that the study is valid. If there is a credible and qualified source that supports the assertions made by the study, then it should be presented for balance. (I can provide direct sources that use the word "discredited", but they are as partisan as the study in the other direction, so I will not as I think it lowers wiki's standards to the CNW level.) DeFacto, do you believe the original CNW study is credible based on the resources provided in the wiki article (or elsewhere that you so far not shared with us.) Do you believe they followed reasonable scientific method, were accurate in their analysis, or were objective in their approach? Red Harvest (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Like we've said before, whether the report itself is credible, or not, isn't the point. The point is whether reliable sources have been used to supply any synthesis made of data in the primary sources - either in reporting its findings or in criticising them (or it). -- de Facto (talk). 23:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolute wikilawyering at its worst. CREDIBILITY IS THE POINT. When even the study's lone defender here (you) won't defend its credibility, that is all the consensus we need that the description is correct. This goes to being obvious from the sources linked. Not every single word in a summary must be referenced. Putting footnotes on every single word is absurd and is a typical "requirement" of those who resist consensus to push their own POV. Red Harvest (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I read all the cited references and believe that most of the independant criticism was aimed at the way in which the report was portrayed by others, rather than at the content of the report itself. There was certainly no clear reliable evidence that the report itself had been "discredited". I've updated the article to reflect this. -- de Facto (talk). 15:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely untrue! Reverted back. The distortions and POV you are pushing do NOT belong in this article. We have consensus, except for your extreme minority viewpoint. Red Harvest (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've explained before, I am not pushing a POV, I'm attempting to achieve a neutral POV in the article. Please itemise the criticisms that you allude to (but still refuse to attribute) and their sources, which lead you to believe that the CNW report (not the media reports citing it) has been "discredited", so that we can see where the misunderstandings are arising. In my dictionary "consensus" means general agreement. Today we have general disagreement over what the sources are telling us. We need to get to the bottom of this. -- de Facto (talk). 21:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Untrue! We are already well past the bottom of this. Yours is one of the most biased edits I've seen on wikipedia other than standard IP vandalism, yet you had the gall to claim you were removing POV. You tore out detailed and referenced criticism of a completely invalid, non-credible, non-peer reviewed marketing study. Without the attached rebuttals the CNW disinformation should not even be on the page, period. You yourself admit the study has no merit yet claim that "isn't the point." It most certainly is the point as it is passed off as scientific study, but instead uses standard psuedo science methods. It is not from a reputable source and even a six year old can find the obvious flaws in it. You've produced NO sources that illustrate that the criticisms are invalid, and every other study before and after points the other direction. If you can find a credible study supporting CNW's conclusions and methods then it should be in the article. Apparently you are unable to do so. It has not been accepted as credible and has been roundly criticized as misleading. You are attempting to give extremist views undue weight and remove criticism of pseudoscience. There is nothing to discuss as you've not added anything new to the discussion since it began (other than you apparently don't find the study valid, but are happy to mislead the reader to push your POV.) Red Harvest (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's review what we actually have, and let me attempt to explain, again, why I believe it is not representing the necessary NPOV. As I've already stated, the CNW report is notable because of the attention it has attracted. Whether it is peer-reviewed, or whether it has followed standard scientific procedure is neither here nor there in the context of its eligibility for inclusion. As the "primary source", it should not be used itself as the reference for its own inclusion (see WP:SELF), but a "reliable" secondary source should be used. The fact that there is no shortage of secondary sources reporting, and mis-reporting, the reports finding give it enough "weight" (see WP:UNDUE) to merit its inclusion on that basis. Whether criticism of the report should also be included, and in what detail, should be a function of how widely the criticism has been covered in secondary references, compared to the coverage of the reports original content. If we exclude self-published sources of the critics, which should not be used to support the criticism (see WP:RELIABLE and WP:VER), I see very little coverage of criticism of the report - so the criticism should take up proportionately less of the article space (see WP:UNDUE). As for using the adjective "discredited" when referring to the report, that is a big "no-no" without a robust and reliable secondary source using exactly that word, and even then it needs to be accurately attributed, something like: "xyx is of the view that the report has been discredited because..." with the appropriate inline reference (to a reliable secondary source). As it stands, the paragraph presents an unacceptable, unsupported, non-neutral and un-encyclopaedic POV. My most recent edit was an attempt to address these issues head-on. I removed the unacceptable self-published sources, balanced the weights, possibly giving more than was due to the criticism, and used only the two most reliable references from the original content. A separate article on the report should be created if it is deemed that the report deserves more detailed cover. Read again the detail of the policies that I refer to, and if you still disagree with my analysis, please come back with a detailed explanation as to why, and we can discuss it in a constructive way. -- de Facto (talk). 22:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is self-published by a non-credible source using pseudo-scientific method. As such it requires the burden of evidence to prove it credible, not the contrary. It was not peer-reviewed and therefore was released to great fanfare before any analysis could be made of the claims. (It is only notable for that reason--it would never have seen the light of day if peer-reviewed rather than self published.) Credible analysis since then have as best I can tell unanimously rejected it. One can argue with the POV of the critics, but so far I have not seen an argument about the substance of the criticism--very important when addressing pseudoscience. You attempted to delete the material that supported the summary so that the article could fit your POV rather than the facts. I'm no dummy and can see right through POV pushing and wikilawyering. Wiki does not require extraordinary proof to dispense with pseudo-science, yet that is what you demand. You've got it backwards. The criticism and analysis appear valid and discredit the article. In the several years since, the author's updates have further discredited it. You have added nothing new and instead are adopting scorched earth tactics (typical late phase resistance to consistence). If you can find any credible support for the conclusions or that explain that the criticisms were unwarranted then you can do so. As such the current depth and weight appear correct as does the summary of the refutations. None of the edits you've proposed in this discussion improves the article--they only produce obfuscation and undue weight. I see nothing constructive in the way you have approached this. What this proves more than anything else is a need for more rigorously preventing pseudo science from being introduced into wiki articles in the first place, because it gives extreme minority positions such as yours an unwarranted platform. Red Harvest (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have now changed your position; from asserting that the cited references already support the use of the adjective "discredited", to we should assume that it is discredited until its credibility is proven. That is not how Wikipedia works. We need to present a neutral POV (WP:NPOV), everything we write needs to be verifiable (WP:VER) from a reliable source (WP:RS), and we should not publish our own synthesis of available data (WP:NOR).

You say I deleted material which supported the summary? Which "material" was that? In the current content we only have:

The first paragraph:

• The first sentence, "A discredited 2006 study ...", concentrates on two cherry-picked pieces of data from the report, with no supporting reference, and using the unreferenced adjective "discredited". Why is that sentence there? Why is no reference supplied to support the "discredited" assertion?
• The second sentence, "It concluded that 2005 ...", cherry-picks a sentence from the report itself, supported by a reference to the self-published report. Why is the primary source referenced, and not a reliable secondary source? What does that sentence add?
• The third sentence, "David Friedman of the...", concentrates on a few out-of-context words of attributed criticism, from a quite well balanced discussion of some 2000 words. Why wasn't the sentence "CNW Marketing Research, Inc., of Bandon, Ore., a firm with a well-established reputation for industry forecasting,..." used? The reference describes, in a reasonably neutral fashion, the two controversies arising from the report- why weren't they, with both sides of the argument, included?
• The fourth sentence, "An article on...", is relatively NPOV, and gives a fair representation of the content of the piece it references from the "Better World Club" website.
• The fifth sentence, "A critique of the 2007...", merely quotes two cherry-picked sentences from a 7-page, non-peer-reviewed, self-published, criticism of the CNW report from the website of the Pacific Institute!

The second paragraph:

• The first sentence, "CNW Marketing's 2007 update...", with two references to the self-published CNW primary source data, cherry-picks three items of data to make an "original research" synthesis that the Prius is now "25% less expensive per mile than...".
• The second sentence, "The update however...", using a "word to avoid", makes an unreferenced original research speculation about the data used.
• The last two sentences, and their two references, about the experiences of Canadian taxi drivers are not related to, and do not address any aspect of the CNW report, so are obviously out-of-place in this section.

Now please explain how that is an acceptable section, and in what way it is even vaguely neutral in its presentation of the debate over the CNW report, and which part that I deleted you think is worthy of inclusion.

-- de Facto (talk). 09:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. Nothing new here, move along. The whole CNW report is cherry picked, fails to adequately disclose methods and is not reproducible. There is nothing wrong with the criticisms leveled. You have absolutely NO OBJECTIVITY and are a 100% POV pusher. This is ludicrous. Red Harvest (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, time to ask for third opinion. That solved our last dispute with De Facto. Justinm1978 (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. De Facto is really crusading for his POV and has zero objectivity. I brought on this cascade by changing ONE WORD referring to a junk science "study." Now he's serially changing what has already been reverted. I've never seen so much wikilawyering by a single editor before. He's got a certain POV he wants to push, and keeps trying different angles to push it. He's trying to wear us down, not gonna happen for me. Red Harvest (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There is NO crusade, and NO POV pushing on my part, I have only attempted, admittedly against some well-entrenched opposition, to clean-up this article and achieve a more NPOV result. Take a look at the edit history for confirmation of that. I hope you feel comfortable that the same can be said about yourself - because it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to believe that. You added the word "discredited" to the first sentence of the section discussing the CNW report. I asked for a reference and attribution to support that, and you have refused several requests to supply one. You have even insisted that, somehow, "consensus" supports your assertion, and that "credibility" needs to be proven before your adjective can rightly be removed. I have pointed you at the Wikipedia policies, and attempted to get you to discuss the issue rationally, all to no avail. I attempted to improve the section, leaving that adjective in place, but removing other irrelevant detail and some uncited OR, and you had the audacity to revert that too, with no rationale, and claiming it has been discussed! Where is the discussion regarding the relevence of the Canadian Taxi point? Or that of the WP:OR and unattributed comparisons with other vehicles? Please restore my edits, or provide a reasoned rationale for their elimination. -- de Facto (talk). 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You tried renaming it in yet another POV way "CNW-inspired"? (Life cycle cost was not a new concept for hybrid analysis.) Changing so much when you have failed to achieve any consensus is DISRUPTIVE, not improving the section. What good is discussing any of this with you? You did serial edits when none of your recent edits on this were accepted. You won't yield to consensus and will only alter your argument to continue your POV crusade as this lengthy talk page illustrates. The Taxi section was a direct rebuttal of the ridiculously short lifetime claims made by CNW and therefore belongs here. You can't seem to apply the wiki standards in any balanced way and instead are attempting to use them to push your POV via wikilawyering. Trying to use technicalities to intentionally mislead the reader is what you are doing. That is not the intent of Wikipedia. Red Harvest (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you are straw-clutching. This section, and the debate which it should contain, were inspired by the CNW report. I'm not fussy about the precise title though, and I'm sure you could have tweaked it or discussed it, or even reverted just this edit, without resorting to point making by reverting a whole series of edits as here. Do you know what "lifetime" is in this context? It is the average life of a vehicle in miles and or years. The CNW report was not commenting on the likely durability of the Prius, just estimating a likely average life-span for it. Not all users will use it as a taxi, so will not clock-up huge mileages, they base their figures on averages and typical usage, not on world-record achievements of individual vehicles. The interpretation of the taxi report as evidence that the CNW report is flawed is another excellent example of exactly what the WP:NOR policy is attempting to banish - pure personal POV and original research. Can you not see that? Even if durability was being judged, what value does hearsay from a Canadian taxi driver add? You talk about the CNW report not being based on sound scientific research, or being peer-reviewed, or a reliable source. Can you not see the breath-taking hypocrisy displayed by then insisting that the taxi-driver evidence should stay as a valid rebuttal of lifetime claims??? You couldn't make it up, could you. The other changes were minor, and removed unsourced POV and OR, which you have now also restored. Would you care to attempt to defend some of them too? -- de Facto (talk). 17:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable. You can't get past your POV and instead create new reasons every time trying to shove everything else out. You keep grasping at straws trying ot gut the article. This is standard scorched earth for a POV pusher. Reasonable people can see right through what you are doing. Red Harvest (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You have no answers to the questions I posed then, and are unable to defend your actions. I guess the indefensible is, well, indefensible. Don't waste our time with the meaningless clichés and unjustified personal attacks, all you have achieved with that response is to add another policy violation to your collection (see WP:NPA). If you are unable to justify your reversions of my edits why not do the honourable thing - restore them? -- de Facto (talk). 21:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I will not restore them as they are POV pushing and undue as I've maintained throughout. I find your actions completely indefensible. Your serial editing also posed some revert issues. You seem to think only your opinion matters, but nobody else here agrees with your reasoning as best I can tell. Your actions have been downright uncivil from the start, you've reaped what you have sewn. Editors explain things, you dismiss the explanation, and continue your crusade. I see strong POV patterns in your edits here and in related articles. Your edits are very one sided from what I've sampled. If something puts a hybrid in positive light you remove it while accentuating the negative even when it comes from non-credible sources and makes extreme claims. It's all based on your opinion (POV) of relevance and credibility. You've called all the other editors faith into question then complain about civility and their own questioning of your POV. The way you are approaching the editing is the same as the problem with the way CNW approached the study, you are attempting to manipulate wiki rules to insert your POV rather than create accurate articles--you know the answer you want and manipulate the "data" to get it. The only conclusion I am left is that much of your editing is in bad faith. There is really nothing to discuss as you won't listen to us. It is pointless. Red Harvest (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Still no answers or discussion on the substantive questions then. We can draw our own conclusions from that. -- de Facto (talk). 23:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The CNW report made factual assertions, and evidence concerning those assertions is relevant, even if it received less media attention. In fact this is a major function of encyclopedias, to make available less widely known information that is particularly relevant to a topic.

Considering the CNW report as a media phenomenon rather than as factual content, the proportion of original coverage reporting the CNW conclusions to coverage of refutations (including CNW's later report) is relevant and should be reported. It is usually the case that sensational reports get more attention than later corrections, and this is a good example of that phenomenon. --JWB (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

AGREED! Great summary. That is the problem, the CNW report is a media phenomenon rather than a scientific study. Red Harvest (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You agree? Why are you disrupting the process of achieving that then, by adding unsupported POV, and refusing point-blank to attribute it? Why did you revert a well reasoned series of edits aimed at improving the NPOV and quality of the section then? -- de Facto (talk). 15:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The only disruptive influence here is you pushing an extremist minority opinion to give undue weight to your own POV. I summarized what the section and its references said in one word. That is within standard wiki editing as the sources explaining why were listed in the section. I could have used "fatally flawed" direct from those sources but discredited was a better summary. This scorched earth and wikilawyering practice you engage in on this page needs to stop. It appears we have pretty clear consensus here that what you are trying to do is POV pushing that is not advancing the article. Red Harvest (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As you keep insisting it exists, please explain what POV you think I am pushing. Then explain how you think your edit, which you refused to provide a cite for, even after several requests, was not POV pushing. Do you know what "original research" is - exactly what you said you did above, when you said "I summarized what the section and its references said in one word". None of the the sources in the section supported that assertion. You cannot cherry-pick adjectives and use them without attributing them, and balancing them with other opinions. What is this "consensus" you keep referring to? Anyway, local consensus cannot overrule the strong NPOV policy requirements. The addition of some balanced and referenced POV (as opposed to your personal OR/POV) will enhance this article, now please stop disrupting the evolution of this article by resisting its addition. -- de Facto (talk). 17:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that my summary reflects the references. I could instead insert all of their criticisms, but then it wouldn't be a summary now would it? If I wanted to push POV instead I would substitute "fatally flawed" quoting from one of the rebuttals rather than "discredited." The problem is that you've done nothing to change my mind nor any of the others here who do have a consensus opinion about the edits you are trying to make. We've explained the problem with your undue weighting of pseudoscience/media phenomenon. You refuse to accept it. Fine, that's your problem, not ours. Red Harvest (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The CNW report was widely reported, and even misrepresented, often to cause a sensation. It was a gift to those who couldn't understand the hype surrounding the Prius, and advantage was definately taken of it. This though, is not necessarily the fault of CNW, and this section should give a balanced view, including reported views from CNW and from critics of the report. We need to be careful though to use reliable sources, not self-published criticism by Prius worshipping environmental groups, and not accept the addition of personal POV and WP:OR like we have in the article at the moment. -- de Facto (talk). 15:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The source you removed was a report by notable scientist and science writer James Gleick of the reputable nonprofit Pacific Institute whose staff publishes in top scientific journals. So this is biased self-published worship, while the report issued by CNW Marketing Research, a secretive commercial research firm working for the US auto industry, is objective, just misunderstood, and reputably published? --JWB (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Check again what I did (here). You'll see that I removed all the self-published primary sources, both from CNW and from the PI, and I removed the irrelevant stuff about Canadian taxis. I left just the two reasonably balanced secondary sources. Now explain again, in more detail perhaps, exactly what you are alleging.

Incidentally, do you support the use of unattributed and personal POV-inspired derogatory adjectives? -- de Facto (talk). 21:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:VER#Self-published_sources is about vanity publishing, personal websites and blog posts, etc. Check Wikipedia:RELIABLE#Scholarship for criteria for evaluating scholarly sources - for example the number of Google Scholar citations of the source. CNW's reliability is debatable (see its wikilinked article) but to exclude the very report that is the subject of the section is absurd and contradictory to Wikipedia:VER#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_about_themselves. In any case there are also secondary sources covering the PI report, such as SF Chronicle.

If the adjective you mean is "discredited", Google defines it as "being unjustly brought into disrepute", which is indeed inaccurate about CNW. Besides the many refutations (and the Vancouver taxi experience is one of the most relevant pieces of evidence refuting their assumptions) even CNW quietly withdrew many of its assertions in the following year's report, so not even CNW is still claiming the results are valid. This article should just describe this situation accurately. --JWB (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the CNW reports should be cited, as they are the subject, but synthesis of what they are saying, and what critics are saying about them should only be from secondary sources, as I've already said (many times now) and certainly not from OR.

I was thinking "discredited" as defined in the OED as "brought into discredit or disrepute", with "discredit" being: "to show to be unworthy of belief". Do you think this should be allowed to stand unattributed?

Explain how you think the taxi case has any bearing on the anticipated average life of a car? The report isn't commenting on durability, but on average likely miles before scrapping, the life over which the energy cost has to be divided by. Are you seriously suggesting that because a few taxis have achieved large mileages in a few years, that ALL Priuses will therefore be used a similar amount. I think not. I think the average Prius will be scrapped roughly as suggested in the report. We know however, that simple robust cars, the Land Rover Defender for example, which are not generally anywhere near as reliable as Toyotas (see J.D. Power surveys) are kept for decades, and run-up huge mileages, and so have a bigger number to divide the energy cost by. That is an obvious, if inconvenient, truth. No amount of taxi miles will change that.

I agree wholeheartedly with you, and have said so many times, that the article should be an NPOV and accurate description of the situation. -- de Facto (talk). 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What critics have said about the report is by definition not in the original report, unless there is a revised version addressing criticisms. I don't recall seeing any OR so far; of course we are all against OR, but I'd have to see specific examples.

The report has in fact been discredited (without the unjustly) which is simply describing the situation, but I don't care if that adjective is in the article or not. Accurately describing how it has been discredited, as we have done, is what counts.

By now there may be a track record for Priuses specifically, but Toyotas in general are reliable and kept in service to high mileages, as you acknowledge, and if anything this record has continued to improve over time. Why would the Prius deviate from this, particularly since you're not contesting durability? Especially with high gas prices, people are driving their Priuses in preference to their other vehicles as much as possible, and driving other vehicles in preference to their Hummers as much as possible. It is likely that the average Prius will accumulate over three times the mileage of the average Hummer, not vice versa. The article just needs to state that CNW is based on this ridiculous assumption, and there will be no risk any reader will credit the study, unless the mention is buried so that some readers don't see it. --JWB (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

All sound and well reasoned points, but, ...they are your personal POV, and as such, cannot (I'm sure you will agree) be used to assert rightness or wrongness of unattributed POV assertions about the report. The question of typical lifetime mileage for the Prius will, I'm sure, become apparent as time goes by, but there are precedents (think Honda Insight) for caution when estimating the likely future desirability and practicality of running (whether it all still actually works or not) an old and technically complex vehicle which may have once been at the leading-edge of technology and fashion. Having one view about the likely course history will take does not automatically discredit an alternative view. -- de Facto (talk). 10:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you asserting that Insights are driven little or being scrapped? Please let us know what reports you've found of this. Are you asserting something based on the Insight's lower sales and end of production by Honda? Whatever it is, it's not applicable to the Prius whose sales are hundreds of times greater and continually rising.

All cars get old, old Toyotas still get used. Car reliability in general has continued to rise. Consumers have reacted to gas prices by preferring fuel-efficient cars. Those are not POV but referenceable fact.

"Technically complex" is your personal POV. Much about the Prius is simpler than other cars.

Does CNW provide any basis for its ultra-low Prius or ultra-high Hummer mileage assumptions, and if so what is it? Those are reasonable questions and the answers should be reported in the article.

Finally, CNW itself has withdrawn many of the conclusions. What adjectives do you think would aptly describe such conclusions? --JWB (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Verifiability requires a 'reliable source'. CNW and its spokesman Art Spinella appear to not be reliable sources. The CNW material are falsified, not verified. It thus does not meet the standard for inclusion. The old 'criticism' section got deleted about 6 months ago because it had turned into a cess-pit of POV rants. Unfortunately, the 'controvesy' section appears to be going the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.189.191 (talk) 04:44, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

It has been months since my Google News search found a hit on the CNW study, which suggests it has outlived its usefulness. It would be a shame to give it any further recognition. My feeling is it and the retracted Canadian nickel mining article should be removed. Heck, the last major reference was by columnist, George Will, and he substituted zinc for nickel. Time to let them go. --Bwilson4web 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

CNW is not a household word, but the urban legends based on CNW and similar sources are still circulating. Readers coming to Wikipedia to check rumors should be able to find information on their history, (lack of) basis, and proponents. This is not to say that the section has to be titled after CNW, which is just one source, albeit apparently an early one, or that the main coverage has to be in this article instead of a separate one. --JWB 00:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)